Gertrude Hamilton v. Susanna Murray

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [999724563-2] Originating case number: 2:15-cv-02085-PMD Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999822071]. Mailed to: Hamilton. [15-2406]

Appeal: 15-2406

Doc: 10

Filed: 05/13/2016

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-2406

GERTRUDE CORETTA FENNELL HAMILTON,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
SUSANNA H. MURRAY; ERIC C. SCHWEITZER; CATHERINE B.
TEMPLETON; OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART PC;
DEPUTY CLERK MELISSA NEWMAN,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston.
Patrick Michael Duffy, Senior
District Judge. (2:15-cv-02085-PMD)

Submitted:

April 29, 2016

Decided:

May 13, 2016

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gertrude Coretta Fennell Hamilton, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-2406

Doc: 10

Filed: 05/13/2016

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Gertrude Coretta Fennell Hamilton filed suit against the
opposing

counsel

and

a

federal

district

court

deputy

clerk

involved in her prior Americans with Disabilities Act suit.

Her

instant complaint alleged fraud and other misconduct related to
the prior employment litigation.
the suit as frivolous.

The district court dismissed

Our review of the record and Hamilton’s

contentions on appeal reveal no reversible error.

Accordingly,

we affirm substantially for the reasons stated by the district
court.

Hamilton v. Murray, No. 2:15-cv-02085-PMD (D.S.C. Oct.

14, 2015).
In addition, Hamilton sought to bring suit against a deputy
clerk of the court for errors and actions taken as part of her
employment.

Judges possess absolute immunity for their judicial

acts and are subject to liability only in the “clear absence of
all

jurisdiction.”

(1978).

Similarly,

Stump

v.

court

Sparkman,

clerks

enjoy

435

U.S.

349,

derivative

356-57

absolute

judicial immunity when they act in obedience to a judicial order
or under the court’s direction.

McCray v. Maryland, 456 F.2d 1,

5 (4th Cir. 1972); see also Pink v. Lester, 52 F.3d 73, 78 (4th
Cir.

1995)

(holding

that

causes

of

action

against

clerks

of

court for negligent conduct impeding access to the courts cannot
survive).

Moreover, to the extent Hamilton alleged that the

clerk acted intentionally, this fact alone, even if true, would
2

Appeal: 15-2406

Doc: 10

Filed: 05/13/2016

Pg: 3 of 4

not deprive her of absolute quasi-judicial immunity from suit.
See Stump, 435 U.S. at 356 (holding that a judge may “not be
deprived of immunity because the action [taken] was in error,
was done maliciously, or was in excess of his authority”).
Here, Hamilton’s claim is based on her confusion regarding
the docket sheet from her prior case.
clerk

intentionally

delayed

entering

She alleges that the

the

final

order

in

her

prior case until the Defendants’ bankruptcy stay was in place in
order to prevent Hamilton’s appeal.

However, although summary

judgment was granted on Hamilton’s claim in February 2009, the
clerk could not enter a final order until the counterclaim was
resolved.

This is the delay of which Hamilton complains.

was entirely proper and did not prevent her appeal.

It

Moreover,

to the extent Hamilton claims that the bankruptcy stay prevented
her from timely appealing the underlying order, this claim was
raised and rejected in the prior proceeding.
Hamilton also avers that the court clerk improperly altered
the final court order.

However, the alteration removed language

stating

had

that

counterclaim.

Hamilton

agreed

to

the

dismissal

of

the

Given that Hamilton herself complained of this

language, the alteration did not prejudice her.

There is also a

notation that the final order was later modified to replace a
damaged

document.

Although

Hamilton

3

asserts

that

this

was

Appeal: 15-2406

Doc: 10

Filed: 05/13/2016

Pg: 4 of 4

wrongful and compensable conduct, she does not aver how this
modification was improper or how she was injured.
Thus, Hamilton’s claims against the court clerk consist of
assertions that she delayed entry of an order and improperly
altered another order.
that

no

existed.

procedural

Our review of the prior case makes clear
inconsistencies

Accordingly,

the

claims

or

damage

against

to

the

Hamilton

clerk

were

properly dismissed as frivolous.
As such, we affirm the district court’s judgment.

We deny

Hamilton’s motion for appointment of counsel.

We dispense with

oral

contentions

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

and

materials

legal
before

this

court

are
and

argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

4